Given our recent readings of Cicero and Quintilian, how do you determine the actual function of speech? Do you agree with Plato that speech is in fact the sharing of knowledge and truth among human beings? Or do you side with Cicero that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it? Argue for one side or the other given your knowledge of the readings and research some internet sources for similar ideas on speech. Cite specific examples in the text you've read to bolster your response.
Make sure that your response is AT LEAST two (2) paragraphs long. Type it into a Microsoft Word document and paste it into the comment box if necessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I personally agree with Cicero, that speech is a pesuasive technique.
This is so because when giving a speech you are enabling two sides. The side you are angling your reader towards, and the oppossing side in which others who dont agree with you fancy instead.
Everyone looks at a situation differently, so speech is just the act of getting them to comprehend your side of how you perceive it, which is persuasion.
Speech deals with not only logic, but reasoning as well, which makes up the art of persuasion.
To me, persuasion and speech are not necessarily two seperate things, but rather one depending on the other to make it whole.
"And indeed in my opinion, no man can be an orator complete in all points of merit, who has not attained a knowledge of all important subjects and arts. For it is knowledge that oratory must derive its beauty and fullness, and unless there is such knowledge, well-grasped and comprehended by the speaker, there must be something empty and almost childish in the utterance."
-Erin G.
In response to the question of determining the actual function of speech, i agree with Plato. Speech is the sharing of knowledge and truth amoung human beings. I chose this side because in everyday life, we use speech to discuss various topics of politics, work, and our surroundings. Whether it is with our friends or with our teachers, we are expressing our opinions and learning from the knowledge of others around us.
In Plato's Quintilians's Institutes of Oratory, he states "I argue that the ablest teachers can teach little things best,if they will." I believe that this means the best teachers can explain the littlest things they know through speech. By saying this, i believe it shows that anyone can share what they know if they learn from others.
We are taught from a young age how to use language and speech, and from that age on we use it for the rest of our lives. It is our job to continue to teach others how they can use speech,based on what we have learned.
A. Burchel!
From our recent readings from Cicero and Quintilian I have learned there are two types of speech; persuasive and the sharing of knowledge. From my studies I have come to agree with Plato that speech is in fact of sharing of knowledge and truth about human beings rather than agreeing with Cicero that speech is entirely persuasive. One reason why I think this is because when I speak to people I try to inform people of what I am talking about.
From Of Oratory states that, “which without that knowledge of theirs is nothing at all. For this is the essential concern of orator, as I have often said before,- a style that is degnified and graceful and in conformity with the general modes of thought and judgement.” What I take from this excerpt is that the main mind set of someone speaking is that they need to inform someone of whatever they’re talking about. For example, on TV every channel is there to inform you of what going on. Another example is commentators at a football game. Whenever they speak they are trying to explain and inform you of what is going on in during the game.
-S. Everhart-
Cicero, in my mind, had the most valid point on speech. He believed that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. This means that in a since when speech is being used to persuade someone it has some truth in it. At the same time it doesnt have the complete or total truth.
† Joseph Baranowski †
Cicero's veiws can also be connected with politics. When one uses persuasion in political speechs they tell most of the truth but not all of the truth. "Indeed in handling those causes which everybody acknowledges to be within the exclusive sphere of oratory, there is not seldom something to be brought forth and employed, not from practice in public speech." In this quote from Cicero he believed that if you say the right things at the right time, everyone will catch on and help you in your persuasion.
In conclusion i completely agree with Cicero.
Cicero, in my mind, had the most valid point on speech. He believed that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. This means that in a since when speech is being used to persuade someone it has some truth in it. At the same time it doesnt have the complete or total truth.
Cicero's veiws can also be connected with politics. When one uses persuasion in political speechs they tell most of the truth but not all of the truth. "Indeed in handling those causes which everybody acknowledges to be within the exclusive sphere of oratory, there is not seldom something to be brought forth and employed, not from practice in public speech." In this quote from Cicero he believed that if you say the right things at the right time, everyone will catch on and help you in your persuasion.
In conclusion i completely agree with Cicero.
- Joseph Baranowski
(messed up on first one) my bad
In our recent readings of Cicero and Quintilian, we have analyzed the different functions of speech. Plato uses speech as a form of sharing knowledge and truth among human beings. On the other hand, Cicero uses speech entirely as a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it.
From my studies, I agree with Plato in that speech is a form of sharing knowledge. For example, from Of Oratory states that, “which without that knowledge of theirs is nothing at all.” What this statement is trying to portray is that without knowledge, there is nothing at all, meaning that it is worthless. Therefore, I agree with Plato that speech is used as a form of sharing knowledge and not agreeing with Cicero that speech is used as a form of persuasion.
-V. Gobble-
In speech, the writer uses persuasion by speaking to the audience about their side using techniques that are sometimes false, but tend to get the audience to reply positively.
In all oratorical speech, the reader doesnt always agree with two opposite sides, so it is his/her's job in writing the speech, to get the audience to choose, which is the act of persuasion.
Some people may see that persuasion is just a devious way for people to "hop on your band-wagon," but if you have a good point behind it, it doesnt necessarily have to be so devilish after all. Speech is the same way. You have your topic, and you have to persuade people to agree. If giving out false information is the key, thats not the point. The point is, is that you just got people to understand the your speech, and agree with it, now thats persuasion!
--d.fivecoat!
In our recent readings we have discussed how Cicero and Quintilian view speech. However, I believe that the actual function of speech is that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it.
In Cicero's "Of Oratory", he states that "that every man was eloquent enough upon a subject that he knew -has in it some plausibility but no truth; it is nearer the truth to say neither can anyone be eloquent upon a subject that us unknown to him, nor, if he know it perfectly and yet does not know how to shape and polish his style, can he speak fluently even upon what he does know" in other words Cicero thinks that as long as we know how to add emotion and act in a speech, the audience will be persuaded, even if the orator is not speaking the complete truth to them.
One example may be a lawyer who is defending a criminal, even if the lawyer knows that the criminal is guiltily he/she can make the jury believe that there is some innocence to what he did just by adding emotion or acting. Even if this situation may not be true, his performance may cause the jury to rethink the situation, thus causing less punishment.
This is why I side with Cicero’s view of the function of speech.
-Cindy :)
I believe, like Cicero, that rhetoric is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. Speech is used for persuasion.
Cicero said, “…to be sure, whether, as some have thought, nothing can be known for certain, nothing clearly understood and apprehended.” This means that not everything is fact; it is what trusted people lead us to believe. Even if what a man says is fact, he must use persuasion in order for others to believe him. A fact is no good unless it is supported.
*S Morris *
Speech is the persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. A good speaker may not always know facts. How he presents his speech with style and syntax can manipulate as well. For example, when a motivational speaker is speaking to a group, he/she may not state facts at all, but instead use the appeals pathos and ethos to the audience.
Plato is wrong by saying that speech is the sharing of truth and knowledge to other human beings.
-R.Woods-
I believe that the true function of rhetoric is to persuade. As Cicero once said, “Nothing is so unbelievable that oratory cannot make it acceptable.” When you look at the speeches of the past as well as the present it is clear that the goal of the orator is to persuade the audience in one direction or another. Every element of a good speech, from diction, to structure, and even to the rhythm in which it’s delivered is created by the orator to persuade the audience.
My opponents will argue that the purpose of rhetoric is to “spread truth and knowledge”. Well in order to spread knowledge must you not persuade the audience to believe what your saying is true? The orator must take the audience away from their prior belief on a topic and replace it with the new information. Erasing this prior belief takes persuasion. In Plato's the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates explains how the first prisoner has to, in fact, persuade the others that the reality outside of the cave is real. In this way Plato himself admits that you must persuade in order to teach. Thus Cicero is correct in saying that persuasion is the ultimate goal of rhetoric.
-Emerson Virginia Jones
Or do you side with Cicero that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it? speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but Or do you side with Cicero that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but
I agree with Cicero, I believe that the function of speech along with rhetoric is to persuade. Speech is a persuasive work associated with truth but at times it can be separate from it. Persuading someone does not always involve knowing the all the facts, just enough. Persuasion is the use of the modes of persuasion and syntax.
NOT FINISHED!!
L. Gonzalez
The actual purpose of speech has created controversy for thousands of years. Plato believed that speech is the sharing of knowledge and truth among human beings. Cicero proposed that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. In my opinion, Cicero managed to figure out the true function of speech. People will not believe things just because they are true. People must be persuaded through educated and occasionally rehearsed eloquence.
In Cicero’s Of Oratory, he states that “… To begin with, a knowledge of very many matters must be grasped, without which oratory is but an empty swirl of verbiage: and the
C. Sutherland
I agree with Cicero 100%. His idea of this matter is that the truth is aligned with the persuasive act; however, it is seperated from it. This ultimately means that with persuasion, you don't always get the full truth. Sometimes it is seperated from the persuasive speech or text.
Politics use this method of persuasion very frequently. Politicians use persuasion to get someone to vote or agree with them.
For example, Sarah Palin used persuasion in her speech on Wednesday; however, when she was critizing Barack Obama, she left off some of the truth to get her opinion and point across.
This is a very frequent occurance within Politics. Every politician uses this ideal to get people to understand their views and opinions. Without the political Conventions or debates, there wouldn't be a chance for politicians to show their views and opinions about the other candidates.
As Cicero said in his "From Of Oratory", politics is the most used form of persuasion and that the truth is sometimes not present.
I agree with that 100%, because in politics, either the truth will come out later in a newscast or it will be mildly present in the speech or text.
Therefore, I agree with Cicero all the way. The truth is either blinded or mildly present. It is very seldom that the full truth is present with the persuasive act.
Speech is used for persuasion or spreading knowledge. Cicero used speech to persuade people into thinking what is the truth by using emotion and body language. Plato used speech to inform others.
I think that Plato's usage of speech is a better idea than Cicero's. First, Plato wants poeple to inform others in order to receive the truth. Plato explains in the Allegory of the Cave, "...But, whether truth or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right." Sometimes to get the truth, you have to be informed about it first. If people are informed, they would have the knowledge to know what is truth or false.
T.Xiong
Speech can be used as a form of spreading knowledge or using it for persuasion. Plato argues that speech is a way of acquiring knowledge and truth and those who have it must pass it on to those who are uninformed. Cicero argues that speech is more focused on persuasion.
While I slightly agree with plato, I think that Cicero might have a better argument. Plato states that the truth must be informed so everyone can be enlightened, but just because information is being passed doesn’t mean that it is always neccesarily true.
Cicero argues that speech is a matter of persuasion. I agree because even when we inform others and try to enlighten them with the truth, are we not in one way or another persuading them to believe that what we are telling them is right? In Cicero’s “Of Oratory”, he states “ For excellence in speaking cannot be made manifest unless the speaker fully comprehends the matter he speaks about, “ meaning that although knowledge is very important, choosing the right way to share it can make all the difference. I think what Cicero really says is even if we don’t always spaek the truth or only state half of what the truth really is, if we just do it the right way, we can persuade others to agree with us, and that is what’s really important. He also states that if we add feeling and emotion to our speech, we can easily influence someone to take our side on any discussion.
- Uroosa Naveen Haider
What is the function of speech? Cicero believes that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. In contrast, Plato believes that speech is in fact the sharing of knowledge and truth among human beings. Plato’s statement is in some way true, but I do not believe that speech’s entire function is to share knowledge. Accordingly, I will have to say that my belief of speech is closer to that of Cicero’s.
I believe that the function of speech along with rhetoric is to persuade. Speech is a persuasive work associated with truth but at times it can be separate from it. Plato states in “Of Oratory”, “In fact that favorite assertion of Socrates – that every man was eloquent enough upon a subject that he knew –has in it some plausibility but no truth; it is nearer the truth to say that neither can anyone be eloquent upon a subject that is unknown to him, nor, if he knows it perfectly and yet does not know how to shape and polish his style he can speak fluently even upon that which he does know.” So when someone is giving as speech they do not always have to know all the facts, or tell the whole truth, if they are telling the truth at all, they can persuade the audience to take their side by using the modes of persuasion (Pathos, ethos, and logos.), inflection and syntax.
-L. Gonzalez
(Now it's actually finished) :D
I agree with Cicero that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. Cicero uses oratory in a society and in the state. When you look at news and media today we are often persuaded to take sides of a story or an event when we don't fully know the truth, we know a version of the truth but not the whole thing.
Cicero states,"Moreover,"he continued, "there is to my mind no more excellent thing than the power, by means of oratory, to get a hold on assemblies of men, win their good will, direct their inclinations wherever the speaker wishes, or divert them from whatever he wishes. In every free nation, and most of all communities which have attained the enjoyment of peace and tranquility, this one art has always flourished above the rest and ever reigned supreme." this quote is a good of example of how politics and media persuade us and can control what we think an what we think about by diverting our attention or making one thing seem more important then another.
I disagree with Plato because i believe that speech can't technically be considered knowledge or truth but the way you can use your words to make your statement.
--Sharlese Hall
What is the actual function of speech? Plato believed that speech is sharing of knowledge and truth among human beings. However, Cicero reasoned that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. Personally, I think Plato’s idea leans more to what speech is about today. In Politics and in our society today speech is a big part of how others view us. For example, with Politics knowledge must be accurate in order to decide who someone wants to vote for. The reasoning why are society and the United States has become so far from this, is because people, especially politicians will tell a person what they want to hear, in order to gain interest in their party.
A famous quote once written by the famous Greek philosopher stated: “In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill... we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one.” I strongly agree with this quote because, if Truth or Knowledge isn’t presented in speech, what would be the point anyway? So in conclusion, I think the function of speech is strongly about how we bring knowledge and truth to others.
Ashley Lauren Bayse [:
As human beings, we use language as our primary form of communication. There are, however, different views on the purpose of speech and language. Some believe it is used as a way to educate, while others believe it is used for persuasion.
Like Cicero, I believe that speech is used as a persuasive technique to convince an audience to agree with the ideas of the speaker. It is often used in our daily lives. As Cicero says, although it is often based on truth, it is also separated from it, which is evident in the world today.
Recently, an important theme in America has been the upcoming presidential election. The candidates running for often are a prime example of the use of speech as persuasion. These individuals each use the power of language to convince voters to vote for them as president of the United States.
When describing oratory, Cicero states that "style has to be formed, not only by the choice of words, but also by the arrangement of the same: and all the mental emotions, with which nature has endowed the human race, are to be intimately understood." By saying this, he explains the importance of the arrangement of speech and the tremendous effect it can have on an audience. By using effective techniques, a speaker can powerfully affect an audience and often alter its previous opinions.
-- e. styers :]
From the recent readings from Cicero and Quintillian. I have learned that there are two sides of speech; persuasive and the sharing of knowledge. I personally agree with Cicero, that speech is a persuasive technique.
The Oratory states "For it is knowledge that oratory must derive its beauty and fullness, and unless there is such knowledge, well-grasped and comprehended by the speaker, there must be something empty and almost childish in the utterance". In this statement The Oratory or the speaker must have knowledge of what he is speaking about because if there is no understanding then the words are empty or like a child who is rambling. The words may be delivered beautifuly but without understanding they are just words.
For example, i will use a preacher trying to persuade the unbeliever to come to christ. They will use all kind of tactics and techniques to have the person believe as they believe. The preacher will use the scripture and personal knowledge to get the unbeliever to accept Christianity. He's constantly using words and examples to persuade the person to come to his way of thinking.
~*ASIA DAVENPORT*~
I agree with Plato, that speech is the sharing of knowledge and truth. I believe this because when you give a speech you are trying to teach people your beliefs and the truth about it. If you don’t have knowledge there is nothing at all. That is an paraphrase from The Oratory. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. use his speeches to teach people knowledge on civil rights issues and the truth about racism and segregation in America. Therefore, if he never educated us on these issues, we would still be a segregated now.
Malcom King Ivery
The actual purpose of speech has created controversy for thousands of years. Plato believed that speech is the sharing of knowledge and truth among human beings. Cicero proposed that speech is entirely a persuasive act aligned with truth but separated from it. In my opinion, Cicero managed to figure out the true function of speech. People will not believe things just because they are true. People must be persuaded through educated and occasionally rehearsed eloquence.
In Cicero’s Of Oratory, he states that “… To begin with, a knowledge of very many matters must be grasped, without which oratory is but an empty swirl of verbiage…”
Just because someone is telling the truth does not mean they will be believed. Rhetoric is about persuading people to believe your truth.
C. Sutherland
Post a Comment